Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Anti War Protests
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="canon" data-source="post: 168821" data-attributes="member: 8423"><p>Ahh cool. Many thanks. Now we're getting somewhere.</p><p></p><p><strong>1)</strong> Drawing down the forces leaves the remaining forces more vulnerable and spread too thin to be effective in trying to combat the insurgents during the transitional process. I'm afraid that is only going to allow MORE violence until Iraq is capable of REPLACING our troops as we withdraw.</p><p></p><p>"<em><strong>III. OBLIGATIONS OF THE USA AND THE UK AS OCCUPYING POWERS</strong></em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>1. Duty to <span style="color: Red">restore and maintain</span> law and order </em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>The occupying power has the duty to restore and maintain public order and safety in the territories controlled by its forces, in accordance with <strong>Article 43 of the Hague Regulations</strong>.</em>" Source: <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20080905040113/http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE140892003" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20080905040113/http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE140892003</a></p><p>If you wish to read Article 43 of the Hague Regulations, you're more than ecnouraged to. I'm getting tired of doing people's research for them.</p><p>Sorry, but item 1 vetoed by reality.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>2)</strong> Placing law enforcement in the hands of tribal leaders will guarantee you a civil war. The "UN" isn't the occupying force. By law, we have to establish a funtioning govt capable of exercising normal governmental functions.</p><p></p><p>"<em>Even though the objective of the military campaign may not be to control territory, the sole presence of such forces in a controlling position renders applicable <span style="color: Red">the law protecting the inhabitants</span>. <strong>The occupying power cannot avoid its responsibilities as long as a national government is not in a position to carry out its normal tasks.</strong></em>" </p><p></p><p>Item 2 vetoed by legal responsibility.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>3)</strong> I'm going to dismiss this statement because you've already started downsizing our presence there in Item 1. This would be a suicide mission and impossible to complete given the smaller number of troops.</p><p>Item 3 vetoed for silliness.</p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>4)</strong> I don't think you would "assure" the Iraqi govt anything they don't want. If they <em>welcome</em> a US military presence it then becomes a matter of strategic importance as to wether or not we accept. I would think it in the best interest of everyone concerned if we had a base that close to Iran. If not, we can hit Iran without a presence there if need be. And if we're only there as a military base, we're no longer "at war" and your argument ceases to exist... or are you simply opposed to military bases? We have bases all over the world where no fighting is happening.. maybe you should retrain your attention to those.</p><p>Item 3 vetoed again. Item 4 vetoed for irrelevance to any cease fire.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>5)</strong> Are you talking about Enron? What in the world does that have to do with bringing the troops home? Yes, we should find out what happened to the money, who killed OJ's wife, and where Jimmy Hoffa is. It's too bad Leonard Nimoy isn't around to do more of his <em>In Search Of</em> episodes.</p><p>Item 5 supported.</p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>6)</strong> That's an interesting idea. Brings up a different point: Why can't the middle east police itself? But going to have to disagree with you on this point. It's not their mess to clean up. As much as I want to get our troops out of harms way, I'm not in favor of trading deaths to those not responsible for the current mess we created. Those people have families too. Unfortunately, it's a price <em>we</em> have to pay.</p><p>Item 6 vetoed for callousness.</p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>7)</strong> That's a mighty noble cause, but has nothing to do with getting the troops home any earlier. Trying Bush isn't going to prove the US has no plans of world domination, and what would you tell the world if he is found not guilty? I think you've already convicted him and he's not had his day in court. Besides, everybody already knows Canada is the one out for world domination. If Bush is guilty of crimes, then that will be determined by lawyers on both sides of the issue in a court. But he should not be tried simply to <em>prove a point</em>.</p><p>Item 7 vetoed for being unAmerican.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes, I'm in favor of staying the course. Not because I want war, but because we've had enough death on our hands. Leaving too early will only cause more, this time to the remaining civilians. If it were up to me, I have to ask "how do we silence the violence to the point we can get Iraq up to par faster and finally be done with it?". Bush's recent request for more troops appears to be one answer to that question. Is it the only answer? Probably not. But since we can't just leave, I'd much rather think the troops there are as safe as possible. If you were there, would you feel safer in numbers? I would.</p><p></p><p></p><p>What rub is that? You feel that because there were some violations that we no longer have to abide by the ones that would keep us there? If you're going to advocate application of the Geneva Convention accross the board, then it also applies to staying the course for the sake of protecting the civilians. You said it best... apply them completely. I'm glad you're finally onboard.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="canon, post: 168821, member: 8423"] Ahh cool. Many thanks. Now we're getting somewhere. [B]1)[/B] Drawing down the forces leaves the remaining forces more vulnerable and spread too thin to be effective in trying to combat the insurgents during the transitional process. I'm afraid that is only going to allow MORE violence until Iraq is capable of REPLACING our troops as we withdraw. "[I][B]III. OBLIGATIONS OF THE USA AND THE UK AS OCCUPYING POWERS[/B] 1. Duty to [COLOR=Red]restore and maintain[/COLOR] law and order The occupying power has the duty to restore and maintain public order and safety in the territories controlled by its forces, in accordance with [B]Article 43 of the Hague Regulations[/B].[/I]" Source: [url]https://web.archive.org/web/20080905040113/http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE140892003[/url] If you wish to read Article 43 of the Hague Regulations, you're more than ecnouraged to. I'm getting tired of doing people's research for them. Sorry, but item 1 vetoed by reality. [B]2)[/B] Placing law enforcement in the hands of tribal leaders will guarantee you a civil war. The "UN" isn't the occupying force. By law, we have to establish a funtioning govt capable of exercising normal governmental functions. "[I]Even though the objective of the military campaign may not be to control territory, the sole presence of such forces in a controlling position renders applicable [COLOR=Red]the law protecting the inhabitants[/COLOR]. [B]The occupying power cannot avoid its responsibilities as long as a national government is not in a position to carry out its normal tasks.[/B][/I]" Item 2 vetoed by legal responsibility. [B]3)[/B] I'm going to dismiss this statement because you've already started downsizing our presence there in Item 1. This would be a suicide mission and impossible to complete given the smaller number of troops. Item 3 vetoed for silliness. [B]4)[/B] I don't think you would "assure" the Iraqi govt anything they don't want. If they [I]welcome[/I] a US military presence it then becomes a matter of strategic importance as to wether or not we accept. I would think it in the best interest of everyone concerned if we had a base that close to Iran. If not, we can hit Iran without a presence there if need be. And if we're only there as a military base, we're no longer "at war" and your argument ceases to exist... or are you simply opposed to military bases? We have bases all over the world where no fighting is happening.. maybe you should retrain your attention to those. Item 3 vetoed again. Item 4 vetoed for irrelevance to any cease fire. [B]5)[/B] Are you talking about Enron? What in the world does that have to do with bringing the troops home? Yes, we should find out what happened to the money, who killed OJ's wife, and where Jimmy Hoffa is. It's too bad Leonard Nimoy isn't around to do more of his [I]In Search Of[/I] episodes. Item 5 supported. [B]6)[/B] That's an interesting idea. Brings up a different point: Why can't the middle east police itself? But going to have to disagree with you on this point. It's not their mess to clean up. As much as I want to get our troops out of harms way, I'm not in favor of trading deaths to those not responsible for the current mess we created. Those people have families too. Unfortunately, it's a price [I]we[/I] have to pay. Item 6 vetoed for callousness. [B]7)[/B] That's a mighty noble cause, but has nothing to do with getting the troops home any earlier. Trying Bush isn't going to prove the US has no plans of world domination, and what would you tell the world if he is found not guilty? I think you've already convicted him and he's not had his day in court. Besides, everybody already knows Canada is the one out for world domination. If Bush is guilty of crimes, then that will be determined by lawyers on both sides of the issue in a court. But he should not be tried simply to [I]prove a point[/I]. Item 7 vetoed for being unAmerican. Yes, I'm in favor of staying the course. Not because I want war, but because we've had enough death on our hands. Leaving too early will only cause more, this time to the remaining civilians. If it were up to me, I have to ask "how do we silence the violence to the point we can get Iraq up to par faster and finally be done with it?". Bush's recent request for more troops appears to be one answer to that question. Is it the only answer? Probably not. But since we can't just leave, I'd much rather think the troops there are as safe as possible. If you were there, would you feel safer in numbers? I would. What rub is that? You feel that because there were some violations that we no longer have to abide by the ones that would keep us there? If you're going to advocate application of the Geneva Convention accross the board, then it also applies to staying the course for the sake of protecting the civilians. You said it best... apply them completely. I'm glad you're finally onboard. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Anti War Protests
Top